Supreme Court agrees to consider Brewer's SB 1070 petition

Gov. Jan Brewer, a year ago, signing SB 1070 into law. While portions of the measure have been enjoined by a federal judge, she believes the legislation has had a positive effect.

Capitol Media Services file photo by Howard Fischer

The U.S. Supreme Court will review Arizona's tough law on
illegal immigration sometime next year.

In an unsigned order Monday, the justices accepted the request
of Gov. Jan Brewer to consider whether a federal judge erred last
year in blocking Arizona from enforcing key provisions of the law.
Judge Susan Bolton had concluded that SB 1070 illegally infringed
on areas reserved exclusively for the federal government.

Officially, the issue before the court is whether Bolton acted
correctly in issuing the injunction.

But in barring enforcement, Bolton concluded that the Obama
administration was likely to prevail in its ultimate bid to have
the statute declared unconstitutional. That means the high court
will have to look at SB 1070 itself and determine exactly how far
states can go in enacting their own immigration laws.

Brewer contends the U.S. Constitution does let states play a
role.

"Arizona did not act in haste, Arizona did not act recklessly,"
the governor said.

The governor acknowledged that the decision by the justices to
hear arguments, probably this spring, does not necessarily mean the
majority intends to let SB 1070 - or similar laws subsequently
adopted in other states - take effect. But she believes it is a
good sign nonetheless.

"States deserve clarity from the court in terms of what role
they have in fighting illegal immigration," Brewer said. "We will
now get that clarity."

The U.S. Department of Justice, which brought the lawsuit
against the state - and had asked the high court to stay out of the
fray at this point - had no immediate comment. But the move
disappointed others who have filed their own lawsuits challenging
the law.

Alessandra Meetze, executive director of the Arizona chapter of
the American Civil Liberties Union, said the move suggests at least
several justices do believe states can be involved in enforcing
federal immigration law.

"We don't agree," she said. "We feel that the federal government
under the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause has the right to
enforce its borders and should be regulating immigration at that
federal level."

Victor Viramontes, senior counsel for the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Education Fund, said he hopes the justices agreed to
review the Arizona law not to overturn Bolton's ruling but to set
some standard for federal trial judges who are reviewing similar
laws. The Obama administration is moving against South Carolina,
Utah and Alabama which have adopted provisions similar to
Arizona.

It also is possible the high court may agree with Brewer only
part of the way.

For example, one provision of the challenged law requires police
to question those they have stopped if there is "reasonable
suspicion" that person is in this country illegally. Brewer's
attorneys argue this is no different than the authority of federal
law enforcement to do the same thing.

But the Arizona law also makes it a state crime for someone not
in this country legally to seek work. Bolton, in her order last
year, pointed out there is no parallel in federal law.

Brewer said she was not familiar with figures released Monday by
the Border Patrol showing a sharp drop in the number of people
apprehended trying to enter this country illegally. Officials have
said those numbers, one fifth of what they were in 2000, shows
increased federal enforcement is working.

But Brewer said those numbers mean nothing to the people living
along the border.

"They are still facing dramatic invasion from illegals coming
across the border," the governor said.

"You can speak to the family of Rob Krentz," she said, referring
to the Cochise County rancher believed murdered by smugglers in
this country illegally. "And you can speak to the people that wake
up every morning in the metropolitan areas of Tucson and of Phoenix
with drop houses next door to them, that regardless of how many
they have deported the problem still is here and alive in
Arizona."

The governor said Arizona has done well at the high court
before, pointing to the ruling earlier this year when the justices
upheld the state's employer sanctions law. That law allows state
judges to suspend or revoke the business licenses of companies
found guilty of knowingly hiring undocumented workers.

That, however, may not be a good parallel for Brewer.

In that case, the justices split 4-4, with Justice Elena Kagan
recusing herself because of her prior role as the federal solicitor
general. That tie vote let the lower court ruling upholding the law
stand.

Kagan is again recusing herself on this case. But here, a tie
vote affirms the ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which
sided with Bolton.

Brewer said she is hoping that the court will be swayed by the
burden the blocked law has had on Arizona.

"Our state spends hundreds of millions of dollars every year
incarcerating criminal aliens and providing education and health
care to individuals who have entered and reside (in the country) in
violation of the federal law," the governor said.

The Obama administration, however, has its own claims of
hardship. Attorneys for the Department of Justice have argued that
letting each state have its own immigration laws interferes with
the exclusive right of the federal government to set foreign
policy.

Watch this discussion.Stop watching this discussion.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language.PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated.Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything.Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person.Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts.Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.